On 09/03/2025 21:22, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi Emilio (2025.03.05_04:29:16_-0400)
I missed this reply. Let's go ahead with the new abseil then.
I NMUed the new abseil (in coordination with Benjamin) and have uploaded
re2.
They're building now.
I see some failures that didn't seem to be liste
Hi Emilio (2025.03.10_09:47:59_+)
I see some failures that didn't seem to be listed in the initial
report. E.g. grpc
grpc was noted before, but failed for new reasons. Filed #1100044 with
an NMU, it looks like GCS will incorporate it into a maintainer upload
soon.
and mozc
kenhys has
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 9:15 PM wrote:
> grpc was noted before, but failed for new reasons. Filed #1100044 with
> an NMU, it looks like GCS will incorporate it into a maintainer upload
> soon.
It is just accepted to the archive. Thanks for giving me some time to do it.
You can cancel the NMU.
La
Hi Emilio (2025.03.05_04:29:16_-0400)
I missed this reply. Let's go ahead with the new abseil then.
I NMUed the new abseil (in coordination with Benjamin) and have uploaded
re2.
They're building now.
Stefano
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 30/01/2025 16:31, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi Emilio (2025.01.26_11:43:57_-0400)
Also this update seems to cause a regression in re2, that needs to be
investigated as well:
There are new upstream releases of re2 that deal with that. I've just
uploaded that to experi
Hi Emilio (2025.01.26_11:43:57_-0400)
> Also this update seems to cause a regression in re2, that needs to be
> investigated as well:
There are new upstream releases of re2 that deal with that. I've just
uploaded that to experimental.
Stefano
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 4
On 14/01/2025 08:24, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
On 2025-01-13 11:13:24 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
llvm-toolchain-17, -18, and -19 build successfully on amd
On 2025-01-13 11:13:24 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
>
> llvm-toolchain-17, -18, and -19 build successfully on amd64 with the new
> Abseil packages installe
On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
llvm-toolchain-17, -18, and -19 build successfully on amd64 with the new
Abseil packages installed
(sbuild --extra-package=.../libabsl20240722_20240722.0-1_amd64.d
On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
I haven’t tried rebuilding yet. I’ll see if I can get to it this week.
Benjamin
Hi
On 2024-10-15 21:45:33 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2024-10-13 20:11:05 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 12:04 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > If a rebuilt grpc would help to do the tests, I can schedule binNMUs in
> > > experimental to h
On 2024-10-13 20:11:05 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 12:04 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > If a rebuilt grpc would help to do the tests, I can schedule binNMUs in
> > experimental to have grpc built against the new abseil.
>
> BinNMUs for grpc in expe
Hi,
Am 12.09.24 um 20:12 schrieb Benjamin Barenblat:
- libreoffice: too big to build on a porterbox, so left untested
This is not the first time I see this claim.
FWIW, I don't buy this.
a) you only need -B
b) /dev/mapper/vg0-srv 159G 48G 105G 32% /srv
and
$ cat /proc/cpuin
On Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 12:04 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> If a rebuilt grpc would help to do the tests, I can schedule binNMUs in
> experimental to have grpc built against the new abseil.
BinNMUs for grpc in experimental would indeed be helpful. If you binNMU
gRPC, I can do llv
On 2024-09-13 08:50:00 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2024, at 11:59 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Do you also have test results for llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}?
>
> I haven't actually tried them. They don't depend on Abseil directly,
> just on gRPC. I th
On Friday, September 13, 2024, at 11:59 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Do you also have test results for llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}?
I haven't actually tried them. They don't depend on Abseil directly,
just on gRPC. I thus expect they will be broken by the transition until
gRPC gets bi
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Control: forwarded -1
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-abseil.html
On 2024-09-12 14:12:23 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> X-Debbugs-C
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: abs...@packages.debian.org, Stefano Rivera
Control: affects -1 + src:abseil
I'd like to transition sid from Abseil 20230802 to Abseil 20240722. The new
version has a new AB
18 matches
Mail list logo
